华中科技大学武昌分校论坛

 找回密码
 入住家园
华中科技大学武昌分校论坛
论坛报错,不良信息举报,本站广告合作QQ:552-779
查看: 189|回复: 0

小木虫上大修后直接接受的例子 [复制链接]

Rank: 2

  • TA的每日心情
    开心
    2017-7-13 07:43:29
  • 签到天数: 16 天

    [LV.4]偶尔看看III

    在线时间
    24 小时
    注册时间
    2014-7-29
    最后登录
    2017-7-13
    威望
    0
    财富
    133
    帖子
    52
    精华
    0
    积分
    52
    UID
    5700485
    发表于 2017-4-27 15:58:08 |显示全部楼层

        推荐阅读主题:我跟你,就是一泡尿的距离 主题来源:名师工作室 ywk12.com
        回复审稿人,态度决定一切
        也许说的有点过,但个人觉得还是很有道理的。
        最近我的一篇SCI接受了。这篇文章花了我大半年时间,于今年暑假完稿并投出。投的杂志是美国的******杂志。一个多月前受到编辑的通知:要求大修!三个审稿人,一个建议积极,说只是语言问题,并没提有关内容的问题;第二、三审稿人都提了很多问题,总共14个大问题,有的大问题里面还有小问题。三个审稿人得第一个问题都是语言问题(一般中国作者投英美杂志大都会遇到此问题,当然,我的看来比较严重)。拿到这个通知,说实在的,头都大了。有几个问题直指文章的死角,回答不好的话,文章的立意直接会受到怀疑。不过,我决定修改!本着态度诚恳,认真、严谨求实的原则,我花了22天的时间把所有问题回答完毕,该补充的实验进行了补充,该分析的数据又进行重新分析,基本是严格按照审稿人的建议意义修改。最后整篇文章的80%左右进行了大修,当然结论不能改动,只能从补充的那个实验中得到进一步的加强。语言问题,本来想请修改公司润色,后来在小木虫上求助, 绝大数虫友建议自己修改, 只有这样不能达到锻炼和提升自己的目的,于是决定完全自己修改。于是乎,就找了十几篇******最近发表的论文(英美作者写的)进行仔细研读,论文语言格式可以套用,加上自己的论述对象就OK了。最后回答问题15页,补充实验3个,原文章80%的修改最终于10月31日提交。后来经过半个月的再审,就直接录用了!
        现在回想起来,感触颇多,本打算着再次小修,然后才能接 受(一般都这样),没想到还算顺利。后来,自己总结一下认为:回复审稿人的意见是很讲技巧的,说不好就完了,特别是对于要求大修的文章!更是如此。谦逊、谨慎、认真、求实的态度最为重要。对于不太清楚的地方也不能回避,要本着自己理解给以回答,最后最好在征求一下审稿人的意见,谦虚的染提起对着干问题给以指导,总之要给审稿人以最好的印象,这是文章录用的关键所在。
        下面列出审稿意见和我的回复,以期与朋友们问共勉:(由于帖子限制长度,部分问题与回答略)
        Dear Edito and Reviewe.
        Thank you for your letter and for the reviewe’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled
        “A simple method for preparation of ****** used as active, stable and biocompatible SERS
        substrate  by  using  electrostatic  self-assembly”  (ID:  ******-09-1602).  Those  comments  are  all
        valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding
        significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction
        which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. The main
        correctio in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as flowing:
        Responds to the reviewer’s comments:
        Reviewer 1#
        Respoe to comment: The review is complete and the main objection lies with the English
        language. I point out a few sentences only from the ABSTRACT and Conclusion. The rest
        correctio have to be done by the autho. I encourage the autho for small sentences.
        ABSTRACT - A new SERS-active ****** on the surface of glass slide has been prepared by
        a low-cost electrochemical strategy at a proper voltage and polyvinyl alcohol (******) concentration
        in  electrolyte  is  performed.  With  scanning  electron  microscopy,  the  morphology  of  the  Ag
        nanofilm is a two-dimeional structure with nano-scale regio
        should read as
        A new SERS-active ****** on the surface of glass slide has been prepared by a low-cost
        electrochemical  strategy  using  polyvinyl  alcohol  (******)  at  a  proper  voltage. The  two
        dimeional morphology of the ****** has been examined by scanning electron microscopy.
        Conclusion -- ... The morphologies and SERS activity and stability of the ******s are
        characterized by SEM and SERS measurement, respectively. SERS spectra of ****** and ****** obtained
        from  these ******s compare with those from Ag colloids, which reavals an excellent
        enhancement effect of the ******s as SERS-active substrates.
        should read as
        The morphology, stability and SERS activity of the ****** have been studied. The excellent
        enhancement of SERS spectra for ****** and ****** from the ****** is observed in comparison to
        the Ag colloid system... The whole MS needs to be edited before it is accepted for publication.
        Respoe: As the Reviewer's good itruction, we have tried our best to revise the English of the whole MS carefully. In order to make the whole MS better undetanding, we have revised some
        long  sentences  into  short  sentences  and  edited  the  whole  MS  according  to  the  Reviewer’s  itruction. Meanwhile, we also have asked some colleagues who are skilled autho of English  language pape to help us for checking the English (see the revised MS). We hope that the language is now acceptable for the next review process. Special thanks to you for your good comments.
        Reviewer 3#
        1. Respoe to comment: English should be checked throughout the text by a native English
        speaker.
        Respoe: According to the reviewer's good itruction, we have revised the whole manuscript
        carefully and tried to avoid any grammar or syntax error. In addition, we have asked several
        colleagues who are skilled autho of English language pape to check the English. We hope that
        the language is now acceptable for the next review process.
        2. Respoe to comment: The manuscript is too long. It must be shortened. The autho must be
        more concise. The introduction takes three pages. In fact, it is very hard to read the paper. There are several sentences that should be changed for a better undetanding. Some correctio are done in the margi of the manuscript (pods file). I enclosed a copy of that.
        Respoe: We agree the reviewer's good advice. Yes, the manuscript is too long (especially the
        part of introduction), which is very hard to read the paper. And that, there are several sentences are hard for undetanding. Thus, we have revised the original manuscript in order to reduce the
        length of the manuscript and make it better undetanding (especially the part of Introduction).
        However, due to additional experiments and explanatio are added in the revised manuscript
        according to the other Reviewer′s suggestion, the revised manuscript is still long in some sort. Nevertheless, we have revised the sentences (especially some long sentences) for the whole
        manuscript in order to make the manuscript more concise. Especially,  the  correctio  done  in  the  margi  of  the  manuscript  (pods  file)  which  the Reviewer enclosed are very helpful to us. We are very appreciated for the Reviewe good comments and correctio made for our manuscript.
        3. Respoe to comment: Repetitio and several adjectives should be avoided. For example:
        autho use ". active, stable and biocompatible SERS substrate." a lot of times through the text.
        Also, they indicate ".perfect stability of." or ".perfect biocompatible." Well, SERS spectra of SC become weaker when the time goes on thus, no Raman signal will be obtained for a long, long time. It mea, that the time deteriorates Ag surface. I think that "perfect" is not a good adjective.
        Respoe: It is really true as the Reviewer suggested that some repetitio and several adjectives should be avoided. Thus, we have made correctio according to the Reviewer’s good itructio. We have deleted the repeated words such as "active", "stable" and "biocompatible" in some sentences. Meanwhile, like the Reviewer questioned that we have not studied the SERS spectra of SC for a long, long time. Thus, the using of "perfect" to describe the SERS substrate of Ag nanofilm  is  inapposite.  Coidering  the  Reviewer’s  good  suggestion,  we  have  deleted  this adjective in some sentences of the revised manuscript.
        4. Respoe to comment: About organization of the manuscript. There are too many epigrap****** in
        section 2. I propose the following points:
        2.1. Reagents. Preparation of ****** and ****** (old points 2.1 and 2.2 together)
        2.2. Preparation of ******-protected Ag nanoparticles and ******s (old points 2.3 and 2.4
        together)
        2.3. Experimental equipments (old points 2.5; 2.6 and 2.7 together)
        Respoe: Coidering the Reviewer’s good suggestion, we have re-organized the epigrap****** in section 2. We have organized three parts for the section 2 of the revised manuscript. The epigrap****** in section 2 are as following:
        2.1. Reagents and preparation of ****** and ******
        2.2. Preparation of ******-protected ****** (******-Ag CNPs) and ******s
        2.3. Experimental equipments
        Special thanks to you for your good comments.
        Dear Edito and Reviewe.
        We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made great changes in the
        manuscript according to the Reviwe′good comments. And here we did not list the changes but
        marked in red in revised paper.
        We appreciate for Edito/Reviewe’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correctio will
        meet with approval.
        Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestio.
        We look forward to your information about my revised pape and thank you for your good
        comments.
        You sincerely,
        R.M. Liu
        5. Respoe to comment: Point 3.3 is entitled "stability and repeatability of ******s". Some
        questio:  Here, it is shown the dependence of SERS relative inteities of SC on time. Is it the same sample (******-adsorbate) that is stored and then SERS spectra are recorded at different times? or itead, the same ****** is stored and then the adsorbate is added at different times and thereafter the SERS spectra are recorded??  Autho should clarify the procedure. Are different results expected with these two procedures? Have been these two methods checked? It is possible that only ******s stored without adsorbate are active for a longer time?
        Experimentally  it  is  often  observed  that  roughed  surface  in  SERS produces  molecular degradation and a comparation between Raman and SERS spectra is necessary to identify the molecular fundamental modes. Why the autho did not record Raman spectra of SC? Raman spectra should be added to Fig. 5. The point 3.3 should be 3.2 because a characteristic of surface is explained and must follow point 3.1. The old 3.2 becomes 3.3. Moreover, old epigrap****** 3.2.1. and 3.2.2 should be removed and  a  unique  point  3.3.  should  be  presented  itead  and  entitled  "  Biocompatibility  of  ******s. SERS spectra of ****** and ******". Also, epigraph 3.4 must be removed and the text must follow to the new section 3.3.
        Respoe: We are very sorry for our unclear report in the section of 3.3.
        For the fit question proposed by the Reviewer, our awer is as following:
        Yes, in the section of 3.3, the main intention is to display the stability and reproducibility of Ag
        nanofilms.  Fig.  6  (in  the  original  manuscript,  Fig.  5  in  the  revised  manuscript)  shows  the dependence of SERS relative inteities of SC on time. In this section, the ******s are stored and then the adsorbate is added at different times and thereafter the SERS spectra are recorded.  For the second question proposed by Reviewer, our awer is as following:
        As the Reviewer's good itruction, we have clarified the procedure in the revised manuscript.
        However,  in  this  study,  we  have  not  studied  the  fit  procedure  of  the  same  sample  (******-adsorbate) that is stored and then SERS spectra are recorded at different times. Thus, these two methods have not been checked. Take the time limit of the submission of the revised manuscript into account; it is difficult to carry out the fit procedure in the revised manuscript. However, we appreciate for the Reviewe’ good advice earnestly. We will check these two procedures in future studies. For the third question proposed by Reviewer, our awer is as following: According to the Reviewer's good itruction, we have recorded Raman spectra of SC in solid state, as shown in Fig. 1(a) (Fig. 4(a) in revised manuscript). Meanwhile, the points 3.2 and 3.3 have also been re-written according to the itructio proposed by the Reviewer. (See the section of 3.2 and 3.3 in the revised manuscript)
        图略
        Fig1.man spectrum of (a) solid SC. SERS spectra of 1.0×10   mol/L SC aqueous solution
        adsorbed on (b) glass slide, (c) ******-Ag CNPs, and (d) ******, respectively.
        6. Respoe to comment: Sentence "the number of spectra for every condition is five" (page 9) or the number of spectra is 5 (Table 1 and 2), what does it mean? Perhaps something like this: Each
        SERS spectrum is recorded 5 times in different points of the ****** surface?
        Respoe: As the Reviewer's good question, the sentence of “the number of spectra for every
        condition is five" or “the number of spectra is 5 (Table 1 and 2)” in the original manuscript is hard to be undetood. This sentence mea that each SERS spectrum is recorded 5 times in differpoints of the ****** surface. we have revised this sentence in the revised manuscript according to the Reviewer's advice.
        7. Respoe to comment: Epigrap****** of Table 1 and 2 should be revised. Correctio are indicated
        in the manuscript.
        Respoe: According to the Reviewer's good itruction, we have revised the epigrap****** of Table
        1 and 2.  The epigraph of Table 1 “Table 1 Preliminary assignatio of the Raman bands (Mean ± S.D., n=5) for the SERS spectra of ******. The number of spectra is 5” is revised as  “Assignments for the SERS bands (Mean ± S.D., n=5) of ****** (based on Refs. [25-30]).”
        The epigraph of Table 2 “Table 2 Observed wavenumbe (Mean ± S.D., n=5), assignments,
        and local coordinates of ******, excited at 785 nm. The number of spectra is 5. [35-37]” is revised as “Table 2  Assignments for the SERS bands (Mean ± S.D., n=5) of ****** (based on Refs. [32-34]).”
        8. Respoe to comment: Figure 4 shows SERS spectra of ****** and ****** recorded on different Ag nanofilms. What do autho want to say? This experiment is to check the reproducibility of the method? Thus, it is better to use the word "reproducibility" and not "repeatability". This must be clarified in the text.
        Respoe: As the Reviewer's good advice, we should use the word “reproducibility” and not
        "repeatability". Figure 4 (in the original manuscript) shows SERS spectra of ****** and ****** recorded on the different ******s prepared under the same conditio. The autho want to display the reproducibility of the ******s prepared by this simple method. Thus, we have replaced the
        word "repeatability" by "reproducibility" in the revised manuscript.
        9. Respoe to comment: Uv-vis absorption spectrum of不******-protected Ag nanoparticules shows a maximum at 418 nm and at 785 nm the absorbance is zero (Figure 1b). Given that SERS spectra are recorded at 785 nm, I think that this excitation line is very far from the maximum to obtain a good signal. In fact, the Raman signal is very weak (Figure 3). Is it possible to obtain a better signal employing another excitation laser, for example, 514nm? I mean, probably the 785nm line is better for ****** than for ******-protected Ag nanoparticules, but under other different excitation laser the ******-protected Ag nanoparticules could be a good substrate for ****** or ******. Have been checked different excitation laser lines?
        Respoe: We are very sorry for our negligence of the explanation for why SERS spectra of ******
        and ****** are recorded at 785 nm. In the studying of the SERS effect of ****** and ******, we think that the excitation with the 785 nm wavelength has a number of advantageous features compared to [a] other wavelengt******. A previous study   has reported that a laser wavelength shorter than 514.5 nm is known to enhance photodissociation and cause  protein degradation even at  a low power. However, the sample damage can be avoided using laser light of a longer wavelength. No paling effects were observed using laser light with wavelength ≥660 nm. In their study, degradation of the biological objects was observed when using 514.5 nm excitation lase. Meanwhile, it is known that when using 660 nm irradiation, for a laser power of 10mW and a diameter of 10  μm, 2the light inteity is up to 127 MW/m . In our system, the laser power is set at 65mW and the 2 3 2 diameter is 90μm. So the light inteity was ca. 10 MW/m  (10  W/cm ), which is much smaller than that of 660 nm irradiation. Thus, in our studies, we employed a 65-mW, 785-nm diode laser to record the Raman and SERS spectra of ****** and ****** in order to avoid the photodissociation and degradation of the protei.
        [a] G. J. Puppels, J. H. F. Olminkhof, G. M. J. Sege-Nolten, C. Otto, F. F. M. Demul, J. Greve. Laser Irradiation and Raman Spectroscopy of Single Living Cells  and Chromosomes:  Sample  Degradation  Occu  with  514.5  nm but  not  with  660  nm  Laser   Light . Exp. Cell Res, 195 (1991) 361.
        Special thanks to you for your good comments.
        2009-11-29 09:39:31
        Reviewer 4#
        1. Respoe to comment: I'm not familiar with blood sample preparation but I wasn't able to extract the final concentration of ****** and ****** added to the ******-NPs and ******. This value has to be clearly reported in the text.
        Respoe: As the Reviewer suggested that we have calculated the final concentration of ****** and ****** added to the ******-protected ****** (******-Ag CNPs) and ****** in the revised manuscript. According our calculation, the final concentration of ****** and ****** added to ****** is ca.4.8 and 1.5%, respectively. However, take the dilution of the Ag colloid into account, the final concentration of ****** and ****** added to the ******-Ag CNPs is ca.0.27 and 0.08 %, respectively. All these concentratio have been added in the revised manuscript.Although the final concentratio of ****** added to the ******-NPs and ****** are different, the quantity of ****** lighted by the laser spot based on ****** (ca.6.075×10  g) equals to (in order  of  magnitude)  that  based  on  ******-Ag CNP  samples  (ca.  5.087×10   g).  Similarly, the quantity of ****** lighted by the laser spot based on ****** (ca.1.944×10  g) equals to (in order of magnitude) that based on ******-Ag CNPs (ca. 1.717×10  g). Take the SERS detection of ****** for example: For the SERS detection of ****** based on ******-Ag CNPs, the probe volume is coidered a focal [b]“tube”   with a waist diameter of 90 ?m and a depth of ca. 1cm. By using the concentration of ****** (0.08%) one can determine the quantity of ****** molecules contributing to the Raman inteity ( (1000+60) ×10  ×0.08% × ? (45 ×10 )  ×1×10 / [(1000+60)×10 ] ~ 5.087×10  g). For the SERS detection of ****** based on ******, supposing that all the ****** molecules adsorbed on the surface of ****** evenly, one can determine the quantity of ****** molecules contributing to the Raman inteity (~ (50) ×10  ×1.5% × ? (45 ×10 )   / ? (5 ×10 )  ~ 6.075×10  g).
        [b] L. Baia, K. Gigant, U. Posset, et al. Appl. Spectrosc, 56 (2002) 536.
        (2) Respoe to comment:   In the experimental results section does not appear how the SERS
        measurements on ******-NPs were performed.
        Respoe: We are very sorry for our negligence of introduce how the SERS measurements on ******-Ag CNPs were performed in the experimental results section. As Reviewer suggested that we have made complementarities of this experimental process in the section of 2.3 of the revised manuscript. (the section of 2.3, 16-20 lines)
        (3) Respoe to comment: A significant comparison between the SERS activities of ******-NPs
        and ****** substrates is not possible based on what reported in the paper. For itance, is the
        number of NPs lighted by the laser spot equals for ******-NP and ****** samples? The autho have to make clear to the reader what they are comparing. Moreover, the normal Raman of ****** and ****** in solution and/or in solid state in fig. 3 would be helpful to undetand the effect of the metal-analyte interaction.
        Respoe: We are very sorry for our unclear description of what the SERS activities of ******-NPs
        and ****** substrates are comparing. In Fig 3 of the original manuscript (Fig 8 in revised
        manuscript ), we mainly want to tell the reader the ******-Ag CNPs are unfit for the SERS detection
        of ****** and ******, compared to the ******s prepared by electrostatic self-assembly with the
        ******-Ag CNPs. That is, the SERS effect of ******-Ag CNPs for ****** and ****** is much weaker than that of ******. According to the Reviewer good question (“is the number of NPs lighted by the laser spot equals for ******-NP and ****** samples?”), we have calculated the number of NPs lighted by the laser spot for ******-Ag CNPs and ******s. The calculation results show that the number of NPs lighted by the laser spot is not equal for ******-Ag CNPs and ******s. One can calculate the concentration of the ******-Ag CNPs in Ag colloid is ca. 1.26×10 /m according to the electrochemical reaction in our work. For the SERS detection based on ******-Ag CNPs, the probe volume was coidered a focal “tube” with a waist diameter of 90 ?m and a depth of ca. 1cm. By using the concentration of ******-Ag CNPs in Ag colloid (1.26×10 /m ) one can determine the number of NPs lighted by the laser spot (1.26×10 × ? (45×10 )  ×1×10 ~ 68.011×10 ). For the SERS detection based on ******, by supposing that the distribution of the NPs on the surface of ****** is uniform, one can determine the number of NPs lighted by the laser spot ( ? (45 ×10 )  /? (200 ×10 /2)   ~2.025×10  ). It can be seen that, the number of NPs lighted by the laser spot for ******-Ag CNPs is more than that for ******s. However, the experimental results show that the SERS effect of ****** and ****** on ******-Ag CNPs is much weaker than that on ******s, indicating that the SERS activity of ******s is better than that of ******-Ag CNPs. As the Reviewer suggested that, we have recorded the normal Raman scattering of ****** and ****** in solid state, as shown in Fig 2A(c) and Fig 2B(c), respectively. Very weak Raman signals are observed from solid ****** and ******. We know that Raman spectroscopy is a powerful tool that gives precise information on the vibration energies of molecules, and can provide the fingerprint for unique chemical identification. However, the Raman scattering cross section of most biological macromolecules  is  extremely  small,  which  causes  the  Raman  signals  of  biological [c]macromolecules are very difficult to obtain  . Thus, in this paper, we attempt to obtain new SERS substrates  to  solve  this  question.  Such  as  the  Ag  nanofilms  prepared  by  using  electrostatic self-assembly with the ******-Ag CNPs in this work.
        图略
        Fig. 2. (a) Raman spectrum of (A) solid ****** and (B) solid ******. SERS spectra of (A) ****** and (B)
        ****** solution adorbed on (b) ******-Ag CNPs and (c) ******, respectively.
        [c] R.Kumar,H.Zhou,S.B.Cronin, Appl. Phys. Lett. 91 (2005) 223105.
        (4)  Respoe  to  comment:   It  is  quite  expected  that  larger  EM  enhancement  occu  on aggregated NPs adsorbed on the glass slide with respect to the un-aggregated ******-NPs. As far as I undetood, the key point of the paper is the fabrication of ****** with interparticle regio of ca. 300 nm where the ****** and ****** molecules can be located, leading then to intee SERS signals. Therefore, this new substrate should be compared to other silver nanofilms which do not present these cavities, in order, also, to give some evidences to the previous hypothesis, which is a mere speculation based on the results reported in the article.
        Respoe: As the Reviewer suggested that we have checked the new substrate with another silver
        nanofilm which dose not present these cavities. Fig.3a (following) shows the SEM image of a
        common ****** prepared using coupling agent of cysteamine and common Ag NPs on the
        surface of the glass slide. It shows that the average size of the particles on the surface of this common ****** is ca. 75 ± 5 nm, which is much smaller than that (200 ± 50 nm) of the
        particles on the surface of the new ****** prepared using electrostatic self-assembly with
        ******-Ag CNPs (Fig.3b). Meanwhile, single layer of Ag nanoparticles is observed and no lots of
        nano-scale regio are formed on the surface of the common ******. Fig.4 (following) shows the SERS spectra of ****** solution (1.5 %, 50 ?L) on this common Ag nanofilm (Fig.4 a) and the new ****** (Fig.4b) with a diameter of 1 cm, respectively. It shows that the EM enhancement occu on the common ****** is weaker than that on the new ******. Meanwhile, striking spectral differences are seen in SERS spectra at 812, and 1022 cm , indicating that the orientation of the adsorbed ****** molecules is different on these two ******s. We think that it is mainly related to the surface characteristics of this new Ag nanofilm. On the surface of the new ******, the average size of the aggregated particles is up to ca. 200 ± 50 nm, which is much larger than that of the common ******. It improves the adsorption ability of the ****** molecules onto the surface of the new ****** effectively. Meanwhile, lots of nano-scale regio with the size of ca. 300 ± 50 nm are formed between the adjacent nanoparticles on the surface of the new ******, which makes ****** molecules can be embedded in effectively. It implies that the presence of nano-scale regio on the surface of the new ****** is an important factor for SERS effect of biological macromolecules.
        图略
        Fig.3. SEM image of the ****** prepared by using coupling agent of cysteamine (a) and by
        using electrostatic self-assembly with ******-Ag CNPs (b) on glass slide.
        图略
        Fig. 4. SERS spectra of ****** solution (1.5 %) on (a) the common ****** prepared by using
        coupling agent of cysteamine and common Ag nanoparticles and (b) on the ****** prepared by
        using electrostatic self-assembly with ******-Ag CNPs, respectively.
        (5) Respoe to comment:  The SERS spectra showed in fig. 5c is doubtfully assigned to ******. I suggest to the autho to carry out control experiments so that to rule out the presence of impurities on their silver film. In the following paper is reported the SERS spectrum of Citrate anion on silver NPs: Title: Anomalous Raman bands appearing in surface-enhanced Raman spectra Author(s): Sanchez-Cortes, S; Garcia-Ramos, JV Source: JOURNAL OF RAMAN SPECTROSCOPY  Volume: 29   Issue: 5   Pages: 365-371  Published: MAY 1998
        Respoe: We are very grateful for your providing of the reference above. We have read this reference carefully. As Sanchez-Cortes et al. reported that the io and new molecular species
        resulting from the reduction of the metal will remain in the colloid system (especially in the citrate colloids), which has an obvious impact on the SERS of the analyte. Thus, in our present work, we employed the method of electrolysis to obtain ******-Ag CNPs, and employed the method of electrostatic self-assembly to obtain ******s. In our experiment of preparation of ******-Ag CNPs, ****** was not employed act as reducing agent in order to avoid the effect of citrate anion on the SERS of the analyte recorded on the surface of the new ******s.Coidering the Reviewer’s good itruction, we have carried out a control experiment. In this control  experiment,  we  have  checked  the  Raman  scattering  on  the  surface of  the  new  ********s prepared under the same conditio, as shown in following Fig .5. The experimental results show that the effect of the impurities on the surfaces of these ******s on the SERS of the analyte is negligible. Meanwhile, as reported by Sanchez-Cortes et al., the Raman spectrum of solid citrate is shown [d]in Fig. 6 a.   We can see that the main SERS bands of solid citrate recorded by us (Fig. 7) are close to the Raman bands of solid citrate reported by Sanchez-Cortes et al.
        图略
        Fig.3. Raman spectra of the surfaces of the different ******s (a, b, c, d) prepared using
        electrostatic self-assembly with ******-Ag CNPs.
        图略
        Fig. 6. Effect of excitation wavelength on the SERS background of an aggregated citrate colloid:
        (A) FT-Raman spectrum of solid citrate (λex=l 064 nm); (B) FT-Raman spectrum of aqueous citrate (2 M, λex=l 064 nm); (C) FT-SER spectrum of the aggregated colloid after addition of NO3
        (0.05 M) (λex=1064nm); (D) SERS spectrum of the same sample with excitation at 514.5 nm.
        图略
        Fig. 7. SERS spectra of ****** based on ****** prepared by using electrostatic
        self-assembly with ******-Ag CNPs.
        [d] S. S. Corte and J. V. G. Ramos. Anomalous Raman Bands Appearing in Surface-Enhanced
        Raman Spectra. JOURNAL OF RAMAN SPECTROSCOPY. 29 (1998) 365.
        Special thanks to you for your good comments and suggestio!
        Dear Edito and Reviewe.
        We have tried our best to revise and improve the manuscript and made great changes in the
        manuscript according to the Reviwe′good comments. And here we did not list the changes but
        marked in red in revised paper.
        We appreciate for Edito/Reviewe’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correctio will
        meet with approval.
        Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestio.
        We look forward to your information about my revised pape and thank you for your good
        comments.
        You sincerely,
        R.M. Liu
        2009-11-29 09:40:21  4   资料  消息 编辑  引用回复该帖   举报给版主
        3
    您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 入住家园

    Archiver|手机版|幸福家园 ( 鄂ICP备 05000187号 )

    GMT+8, 2017-12-15 12:32 , Processed in 0.144307 second(s), 16 queries .

    Powered by Feibaa Studio

    © 2003-2017 14年35.102

    回顶部